Innocence of Muslims, Guilt of Jews, Interests of Whites

Beginning on September 11, 2012, US embassies and other facilities in the Muslim world have been targeted by angry mobs protesting American policy and influence. Protests have also cropped up in countries with large Muslim minorities, including India and such white nations as Australia, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and France.

As of this writing, 79 people have lost their lives (including the US Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens), more than 600 have been injured, and the costs of property damage and policing are running into untold millions of dollars. The violence continues, and the world is still debating the causes.

The emerging liberal consensus is basically this:

1. The film Innocence of Muslims was a vile provocation but protected by freedom of speech.

2. The Muslim world could stand to use some more freedom, democracy, and tolerance. To Muslim ears, this kind of talk should sound like an air raid siren.

3. But the protests and violence were not spontaneous expressions of fanaticism and intolerance by mainstream adherents of the “Religion of Peace” (lest we fear the Muslims who are flooding into white countries and breeding like rodents).

4. Instead, the protests and violence were orchestrated by small groups of extremists, including Al-Qaeda.

Among White Nationalists and others in the Rightist milieu, the debate is whether to blame the Muslims for being intolerant fanatics or the counter-jihadist Jewish neoconservatives who apparently created Innocence of Muslims and used it to provoke the mobs.

If we take a step back from these arguments, it seems clear to me that whatever side one chooses in debating the question “Do we blame the Muslims or the Jews?,” whites really can’t lose, because in the end, we want to free ourselves of both groups.

And that’s my purpose here: to look at this question from the point of view of white interests. I want to argue that, in terms of white interests, the current violence and polarization between Muslims and the West is not a bad thing. It is in the interest of our race that:

1. Muslim immigration into white lands be stopped and reversed

2. Turkey and other Muslim nations be kept out of the European Union

3. All other attempts at economic and political union between European and Muslim nations around the globe be thwarted.

And mobs of angry, violent, alien-looking Muslims attacking American and European embassies, consulates, and other installations can only work in the long term interests of whites. Yes, I deplore the loss of white lives and property at the hands of Muslim mobs. But we need to balance this against the greater good of our race, namely to prevent white homelands from being swamped and destroyed by Muslim immigration and the religious and cultural imperialism that comes with it.

Thus, besides dethroning Ed Wood as the supreme schlock-auteur, the creators of Innocence of Muslims might just contribute to the salvation of the white race. Frankly, I hope that 100 more pranks like it are in the works. With additional judiciously applied provocations, the Muslim street could awaken Europeans to the danger of Muslim colonization and bring globalization to an end.

If I had discovered that a White Nationalist had been behind Innocence of Muslims, I would, frankly, be pleased. So why go on the attack when it appears that the Jewish-led counter-jihad movement is behind the film?

The answer is simple: Jews are our enemies too. Thus I am not going to pass up an opportunity to comment on Jewish perfidy. Beyond that, I am sick of Jews being at the wheel and whites merely being along for the ride, even when, from time to time, our interests coincide. Whites need to wrest control of our nations from Jewish interlopers and begin pursuing our own interests and destiny, leaving Jews and Muslims to their own devices.

Whites have had our destinies controlled by non-whites for so long that we find it difficult to even think in terms of our own interests anymore. So in this debate, some of us end up being more pro-Muslim and anti-Jewish than pro-white. Others tend to be more anti-Muslim and pro-Jewish (or at least anti-anti-Jewish) than pro-white.

But we don’t have to pick either Jews or Muslims. It is not an either/or. We don’t have to take sides in their fights. We need to take our own side and recognize that white interests differ from those of both groups.

Pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish but not Pro-White

1. In an ideal world, we would not have any quarrels with Muslims. They would have their part of the world, and we would have ours. That is certainly the kind of world I want to live in, for the New Right promotes the idea of ethnostates for everyone as the path to global peace and good will.

In such a world, the Jews behind Innocence of Muslims would be simply and unambiguously evil, because they are stirring up trouble where no trouble need exist in order to use white-Muslim enmity to advance the interests of Israel.

In the real world, however, there are 60 million Muslims in white countries, reproducing at more than four times the rate of whites. So there is a real clash of civilizations already underway, regardless of the machinations of the counter-jihadists.

Of course Jews wish promote tensions between Muslims and whites to exploit them for their own interests, using Muslims to dilute and destroy white nations while using whites to destroy hostile Muslim regimes.

But whites can also promote and exploit the same tensions for our own interests. There is no reason to think that Jews will always be able turn such tensions to their advantage — unless whites simply refuse to even try to promote our interests.

2. Tender-hearted whites cannot help but sympathize with Muslims who are oppressed and vilified by Jews. I sympathize with Palestinians, because I too live under Zionist occupation. Many whites work against Zionism and for Palestinian rights but ignore the fact that our own homelands are increasingly under occupation by Palestinians and other Muslims, who are hostile to our culture and threaten to swamp us demographically.

There is something absurd about whites, who are losing their own homelands to Muslims, working earnestly to ensure a homeland for the Palestinians. Of course this does not mean that the Palestinian cause is any less just. Indeed, if the Palestinian cause is just, then the cause of European nationalists is just as well. And since it is our own cause, shouldn’t whites give it priority over the Palestinian cause?

3. Whites with a strongly anti-Semitic cast of mind are drawn to the Palestinian cause because it is a politically correct disguise for their anti-Semitism. Many whites get so caught up in this mentality that they actually would applaud the destruction of the state of Israel, regardless of the fact that presumably most Israeli Jews would end up in white countries. From a pro-white viewpoint, however, that would be a disaster. Thus one could fairly accuse such anti-Zionist whites as hating Jews more than they love their own people.

From a White Nationalist point of view, if Israel did not exist, it would have to be invented so that we could send our Jews there, for whites will never regain control over our own destinies without breaking the power of the Jewish diaspora and sending them slouching toward Bethlehem, to borrow a phrase.

I am convinced that some of the Right-wing rage over Innocence is simply the inability to abide the sight of Jews winning at anything, even when it might accidentally serve white interests as well. But, again, this is an instance of hating Jews more than one loves one’s own people.

4. Whites with a reactionary, anti-liberal, anti-modern cast of mind naturally admire Muslims. They admire their patriarchal families and high birthrates, their intense religious piety (and concomitant intolerance for blasphemy, relativism, subjectivism, and liberal mush), and their willingness to kill and die over ideals. By comparison, the liberal West is devitalized, decadent, and degenerate.

This admiration is particularly strong among Traditionalists, many of whom followed the example of René Guénon in converting to Islam. Guénon, however, converted to Islam because he ended up living in Cairo; when in France, he was a Catholic; if he had ended up in India, as he had intended, he would have been a practicing Hindu. But he remained a Traditionalist regardless of the external faith to which he adhered. Guénon’s decision to follow the dominant religion of whatever land he inhabited was, in short, a deeply socially conservative gesture, whereas the decisions of his European followers to convert to Islam within European societies has turned Traditionalism into a vector of subversion.

As gallant as it is to admire one’s enemies, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that Muslims are our enemies. In the abstract we may admire their willingness to kill and die for their religion. But we should not forget the concrete fact that they are willing to kill us to impose their religion. Furthermore, their religion can only be implemented through the destruction of our civilization. Finally, given the racial panmixia of the Muslim world, Islam would be even more destructive of the integrity of our race than Christianity and liberalism. Muslim societies may resemble healthy white societies of the past and future, but our race will never be able to regenerate itself unless we first preserve it, and Islam is one of the major opponents of white self-preservation.

5. Politically realistic whites with a low tolerance for liberal cant are appalled by the idea of a private cabal loyal to a foreign regime scheming to force the hand of American foreign policy while hiding behind the First Amendment. Religious dissent is protected, but treason is not. A serious country would simply arrest and try the people behind Innocence of Muslims for treason. That would go a long way to dispelling the anger in the Muslim world and would do far more to repair relations than pious rot about tolerance. (Of course when you start arresting Jews for treason, it is hard to know where to stop.)

But let’s face it: America hasn’t been a serious country for a very long time. We are led by a rotating elite of selfish plutocrats (Republicans) and pathological altruists (Democrats), none of whom are concerned with the common good of the nation. With leaders like that, it was child’s play for their senior partners, the organized Jewish community, to subordinate our nation to theirs.

In such a context, the piecemeal application of the conservative instinct to preserve “the system” merely perpetuates the power of our enemies. Political realism, in this context, is the purest form of idealism, since it is detached from the principal truth about the system: it is no longer our system.

It is time to stop promoting policies as if this were still our country. It is not. It is their country now, and we need to divest ourselves of it emotionally and in every other way. We need to stand aside and let them run it into the ground, not propose sensible policies as if this were still our country and we still had a stake in its long-term survival.

If this were still our country, kicking the Muslim hornet’s nest would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, war with Afghanistan and Iraq would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, overthrowing Gaddafi and Mubarak and Assad would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, going to war with Iran would be a bad thing. If this were still our country, America’s confrontational stance toward Russia would be insanity.

But this is not our country. We are just along for the ride. And whites are more likely to gain control over our destiny in North America, Europe, and the rest of the world if America’s present rulers run it into the ground. Yes, they will create untold suffering for millions of people. Yes, it could all be avoided if they would just listen to reason. (As if that were realistic!)

If you pride yourself on your realism, then let’s be realistic. Once America’s economy collapses due to imperial overreach, immigration, globalization, and the financial racket, Europe will have a fighting chance. Once America’s corpse grows cold, the lice will abandon it for fresh blood, and whites in North America will have a chance to build something better. Sadly, since people only seem to learn by suffering, that is the best option for our people.

In general, all these pro-Muslim/anti-Jewish lines of thought have a tendency to excessive idealism: they advance positions and policies formulated for a better world than the one we actually live in. My own thinking systematically inclines toward this error, so I constantly have to ask myself whether my reactions are based on the world as it actually is or the world as I would like it to be.

As we shall see, the anti-Muslim/pro-Jewish side tends toward the opposite extreme of an excessive pragmatism, fixating on the most immediate and easily grasped threat, namely Muslims, and failing to grasp the more fundamental Jewish threat to the point of actually countenancing alliances with Jews.

Anti-Muslim/Pro-Jewish but not Pro-White

If I think that counter-jihadist provocations like Innocence of Muslims can serve white interests, does that mean that I would consider alliances with Jews, as such European Nationalists as Nick Griffin, Guillaume Faye, Geert Wilders, and others have done? Absolutely not, for the following reasons.

1. Jews are our enemies too. Moreover, Jews may be a less visible enemy than Muslims, but they are a more fundamental enemy. The Jewish role in opening white countries to non-white immigration is substantial, although of course it varies from country to country. What does not vary, however, is the fact that the organized Jewish community is the primary opponent of any form of European nationalism, including attempts to halt and reverse non-white immigration. There is no way out but through the Jews. Thus it is superficial to focus on Muslims and ignore Jews. It focuses on the symptoms, not the cause. It focuses on the symptoms, but ignores the primary impediments to actually curing the disease.

2. The very idea of a good faith alliance between White Nationalists and Jews is absurd on the face of it. First of all, nobody makes an alliance with the powerless, and White Nationalists have no political power. Second, Jews are the most powerful nation in the world. If they really wanted to change the immigration policies of European countries, it would happen virtually overnight. They would not need the assistance of marginal White Nationalist groups to do it, either. Instead, immigration reform would immediately become a mainstream issue endorsed by all parties.

If White Nationalists are pretty much politically powerless, then why do some Jews make overtures to White Nationalists? What is in it for them? I think that they have two aims here.

First, although White Nationalists have no political power, we do have one asset that the mainstream political parties lack: the truth about race and the Jewish question. Nationalists who form alliances with Jews, however, are compelled to cease speaking the truth about the Jewish question and instead work to obscure or excuse the Jewish role in white dispossession. This silence or collusion advances the Jewish agenda and impedes white liberation.

Second, the Jews have attained hegemony over white societies by infiltrating, subverting, and transforming the whole political spectrum into defenders of Jewish interests. Thus, in terms of vital Jewish interests, it really does not matter which party attains power. It is sheer folly to think that Jews will not seek to do the same thing to all forms of European and White Nationalism. Since there is no sure way to tell a sincere Jewish sympathizer or ally from a mere agent of subversion, we simply must exclude all Jews and go it alone.

Thus it simply does not matter if a Jewish counter-jihadist or would-be White Nationalist protests that he is genuinely concerned to promote white interests, because that’s what any infiltrator would say. And we need not fear hurting the feelings of any sincere Jewish well-wishers. They will understand our mistrust and refusal to work with them, since they know their people better than any of us could.

What line should White Nationalists take regarding Jews and Muslims?

1. Neither group has any place in our societies. Thus our aim is the most complete separation possible from Jews and Muslims.

2. However, we need to deal forthrightly with the sticky question of how these groups are defined. Islam is a religion, thus anybody who thinks of himself as a Muslim is a Muslim, including white converts. White Muslims, however, have to be seen as vectors of Islamization and thus excluded. By the same token, though, we should have no problem with genetically white Muslim apostates.

3. With Muslims, the essential issue here strikes me as one of consciousness, rather than ancestry. There are groups that we recognize as European that have some Near Eastern admixture. We should have no more problem, then, with non-Muslims with some Near Eastern Muslim ancestry as we have with any other whites with some Near Eastern ancestry.

4. The issue is different with Jews, because they are not a religion but a nation. This nation has an ethnic genetic core as well as a national consciousness that takes both religious and non-religious forms. This national consciousness has extended beyond the Jewish ethnic-genetic core to assimilate other groups into the Jewish collective. Thus genetic non-Jews can become functional Jews, e.g., by converting to Judaism or becoming Christian Zionists, Marxists, neocons, Straussians, Libertarians, Objectivists, etc.

5. But if non-Jews can become Jews, can Jews become non-Jews? Since Jewish identity is not merely a matter of religion, Jewish apostasy cannot be simply a matter of changing religions. Lawrence Auster, for instance, is a convert to Christianity, but his primary loyalty is still to the Jewish nation. One can, however, renounce one’s nationality. Pamela Geller, for instance, could get splashed with some holy water and then solemnly swear that she has renounced her “citizenship” in the Jewish nation. But we’d be fools to believe her. So whites should never accept such Jewish apostates as “us,” even if they might be genetically no more Near Eastern than your average Greek.

6. There is, however, a form of Jewish apostasy that whites should recognize: In the past, Jews have married out of the Jewish religion and national community and into the white race. Thus there are whites today who have some Jewish ancestry but no Jewish ethnic or religious consciousness. Genetically, they may be no more Near Eastern than many Greeks or Italians. A white ethnostate might wish to know who these people are and keep an eye on them, but unless they choose to identify as otherwise, it seems reasonable to consider them whites, not Jews.

7. Recognizing that some whites might have some non-European ancestry is not, of course, an argument against rigorously preventing any more such hybridization. As a general rule, I think we should be less focused on the race that we have been and more focused on the race we wish to become. If it really bothers us, someday we will be in the position to edit out alien genetic code. But we will never reach that day unless we halt miscegenation in the here and now, the sooner the better.

8. It is possible that white nations might have amicable relations with Jewish and Muslim communities. It is possible for whites to feel sympathy for the suffering of Muslims and Jews (indeed, all too much). It is possible that Jewish and Muslim interests might overlap with white interests from time to time, in delimited ways. Such commonalities of interests can be the basis of limited, mutually beneficial political alliances.

9. But not today. Not in this world. There should be no talk of amicable relations, sympathy, or political alliances with Jews or Muslims as long as they are occupying our nations, oppressing our people, and threatening our long-term biological and cultural survival.

10. First, we must attain separation. Only then we can talk about good relations. If, however, out of excessive idealism or pragmatism we entangle ourselves with our enemies, we will never be able to separate ourselves. Thus White Nationalists should do everything in our power to encourage polarization between whites on the one hand and Muslims and Jews on the other.

Greg, I agree with some of the points you make, although I think your characterization of the non-Evolian branches of traditionalism is a bit too simplistic. I myself have an admiration for aspects of Islam, but it has nothing to do with their birth-rate or their willingness to kill and die for their religion, which is only related to the lowest, exoteric, least-interesting parts of the religion. What I admire in it is Sufism – its poetry, metaphysics and the desire for union with God that has been practiced by Sufis in many parts of the world for centuries, and which has been lost by Christianity for the most part. This is the real essence of Islam.

Now, of course, this does not mean that we shouldn’t acknowledge the reality of the political aspects of Islam. Islamists do oppose us, although I would argue that the actual threat they pose of taking over/defeating Western nations, and the U.S. in particular, is virtually non-existent, and they are at best a minor irritant. The only way that they pose a threat to our nations is to the foreign policies of our governments – and, in that, since we also oppose the policies of our governments, we have similar goals. The other very real threat that Muslims pose to the West is through immigration (and, really, only in Western Europe – in the U.S. they are a trickle when compared to immigration from other parts of the world), but that has nothing to do with Islam as a religion – it is a situation that has been brought about by liberalism and, again, the policies of our government in the Middle East, which has helped to transform the region into a hell. If the Muslims were free to build their own nations without the continuous meddling of NATO and the oil industry, they might just build societies that would be good enough so that Muslims would not desire to emigrate to our nations. I have spoken with Muslim immigrants who decry having to live in what they see as a morally bankrupt society, but they come here to make money and to pursue opportunities that are unavailable in their own nations. If their nations were in better shape, they would have no interest in coming here.

Back to traditionalism. I also think what you said about Guenon is misleading. You say that he adopted the religion of the place where he lived. Yes, he did practice Catholicism when he lived in France, but by 1930 he had come to the conclusion that while Catholicism was the ideal religion for Western Europe, that it had become too corrupted with liberalism and modernism to be an acceptable vehicle for Tradition (and this was before Vatican II!). He wrote about this publicly, and it is the main reason he left France. It seems to be true, according to external sources, that Guenon tried to go to India first before Egypt, and did not go only because the British denied him a visa. But we don’t know what would have happened if he had gone there. Today it is possible for a White person to become a “Hindu,” at least in certain branches of the Vedic tradition, although in the 1930s it was virtually impossible since it was upheld by most traditions, apart from the Gaudiya Vaishnavas and a couple of others, that only an Indian could be a Hindu. So I would hesitate to say what would have happened. I would also question whether traditionalism has become a “vector of subversion.” While many Western traditionalists are Muslims, they still remain culturally White, as we know from our personal acquaintance with Charles Upton, and they are much more staunchly anti-liberal, and possess a better understanding of the real problems facing the West than do 99% of their White countrymen. Despite this, are we to say that there is one “correct” religion for Whites to follow? If so, we are opening up a gigantic can o’ worms between Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Heathens. Most Whites, of course, are secular – and I would argue that being a traditionalist Muslim is better than having no religion.

Lastly, I’m not certain why you think it is necessary to eschew political alliances with Muslim groups. There might be much to be gained from an alliance with some of them. I’m not talking about marginal, farcical groups like Al Qaeda, but really effective social movements like Hamas or Hezbollah, which have much to teach us, being an actual embodiment of something similar to what we are trying to build for ourselves here, or Iran, which welcomes people in our circles as visiting dignitaries. I also believe, like Dugin, that we should encourage political opposition to the U.S. and its allies everywhere, and the Islamic world is one of the best places to do that. Admittedly, at this point, we are so weak that we have little to offer them, but that may change. Yes, of course we must be wary of Islamist designs upon our countries, but again, to quote Dugin, there will be many battles to fight between now and whenever our vision of the world is attained, and one’s adversaries are constantly shifting in any strategy based on the principles of realpolitik.

Along the lines of what I was suggesting above about White Muslim traditionalists, here is a link to a very interesting French article that was translated into English earlier this year at the traditionalist blog ridingthetiger.org, entitled “An Alliance Between Muslims and the ‘Far Right’?”. It was written by a White convert to Islam in France, and in it, he actually encourages Muslims in France to OPPOSE immigration into France on Islamic grounds, and even calls for Muslims to support the Front National.

One more thing just occurred to me, which is that I specified “non-Evolian traditionalism” in what I wrote above about Muslim traditionalists. But actually, two of the most prominent Italian nationalists of recent decades, Franco Freda and Claudio Mutti, became followers of Evola when Evola was still living, and both of them chose to become Muslims. So to see White Muslim traditionalists as “vectors of subversion” would be to rule out a significant portion of the Italian Right.

1. It is possible to learn from and admire aspects of Islam without Muslims invading our countries or whites invading Muslim countries. I prefer that we admire them from a distance.

2. RE the right religion for Europeans: I think we can declare Islam the wrong religion for Europe without affirming the right religion. After centuries of struggle, Europe is just now on the brink of freeing itself from one alien religion, Christianity, which we managed to extensively Europeanize. The last thing Europeans need is conquest by an another Semitic desert religion that is almost entirely racially and culturally alien and entirely political.

Christianity was totalitarian enough in practice even though it recognized a distinction between secular law (Caesar) and revealed law (God) and thus allowed the possibility of separation of church and state and a realm of freedom and tolerance. But Islam is an inherently political religion. The Koran is a book of laws. It demands to be recognized as the law of the land. Thus Islamization is inherently anti-liberal, totalitarian, and anti-Western.

Now, I am not “liberal” myself — although I am as liberal as a White Nationalist can reasonably go. Meaning that I want to preserve a pluralistic society under white racialist hegemony. But in our present circumstances, we need to cling to every vestige of liberalism possible: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., lest whites lose all chance of freeing ourselves. Once whites free ourselves of alien religions and powers, we can worry about what the right religion is for us. Until then, I would prefer no religion to the wrong one.

Islam is a rival anti-liberal doctrine, and by its very nature, anti-liberal doctrines cannot live and let live in the same system. Thus we have to keep Islam out if whites are going to survive. It is that simple.

3. White Muslims are vectors of subversion because they enter into a spiritual community, with moral obligations, to their fellow Muslims of whatever race and culture. In that sense, all universalistic, race-blind doctrines are subversive. But unlike Christianity, which is a dying religion, or Freemasonry, which is pretty much a joke, Islam is a growing militant world power that professes the aim of subjugating Europe. We cannot, therefore, look kindly on Traditionalists who become Muslims in European countries. I urge them either to follow Guenon to the Muslim world, where his gesture made sense, or to follow his deeper example and seek to practice a Traditional version of a western religion. Orthodox Christianity has much to recommend it in that respect, but I also put some home in pagan reconstructionism, although that is a topic for another article (which is in the works).

1. We’re in agreement there, generally speaking. Although if no Muslims ever travel to our lands, and if we never go to theirs, contact would be limited to books and such. Personally, I have no desire to live in a world where there is no real-world contact between cultures (nor has such a civilization ever existed before). But then I don’t know how you see this working in a theoretical ethnically homogeneous White republic.

2. Well, the very fact that you speak of the West “freeing itself from an alien religion,” meaning Christianity, implies that you do have a specific view on what the right religion for Whites is. I am far more skeptical that such a liberation is actually taking place, or whether we can really say that Christianity as it evolved in Europe is really alien. But anyway, let’s not get into that now. As I wrote before, I don’t see Islam as having a realistic shot at dominating the West, except through immigration. If Islamic immigration were stopped, the presence of a small number of White Muslims, and perhaps even a few emissaries from the Islamic world, should be something that the West could handle without it being a threat to its cultural and racial integrity. Just as I can’t imagine any future West that doesn’t have at least some White Christians in it, even if there is a sudden, massive religious paradigm shift. As for the issue of no religion being better, I don’t believe that meaningful political action is possible without a spiritual basis, but that is my own view.

3. Well, Christianity became a force for European identity in its heyday. Even if, theoretically, the majority of Whites were to become Muslims in the future, I imagine a form of “European Islam” would develop which would be different from what it is today. (I’m not advocating such a thing, just talking theoretically.) Anyway, to say that White Muslims who are traditionalists are somehow part of a fifth column that will subvert the West doesn’t seem right to me. First, they are too small in number and don’t attract enough attention to pose a threat. There have been Muslim converts in the U.S. since at least the 19th century, for example, but apart in spite of the ravings of Fox News I don’t believe that we are in danger of becoming a shariah state. Second, the Islamists, whose interpretation of Islam is highly at variance with the traditionalist view of it, hate them as much as they do non-Muslims. Perhaps more so. They’re not working together. So how does the existence of White Muslim traditionalists threaten to subvert the West? I don’t see why it’s necessary to politely suggest that they “love it or leave it.”

This has bigger implications as well – are we to tell White “Hindus,” White Buddhists, and White Taoists that they have no place in our society? Personally, the idea of a society where everyone practices just one religion strikes me as sterile, and also as un-Western, since tolerance for religious minorities among our own people has been a hallmark of the West since ancient times.

Also, I know you know this, but anyone seeking to follow Guenon – or Evola, for that matter – cannot go back to pagan reconstructionism, which they viewed as pointless. Therefore, the only remaining option would be to go back to Christianity – which, as you’ve already wrote, means embracing yet another alien ideology. So it seems to leave one at an impasse.

1. Trade, tourism, and intellectual and artistic and culinary exchanges with other races and cultures: Yes. Colonization by other races and cultures: No.

2. I think that pagan reconstructionism can be squared with Traditionalism, which is something I wish to explore in a future essay.

3. Whites who dabble in Sufism should be the least of our worries. But they should be a worry, because unlike whites who dabble in Hinduism or Buddhism, there is not an aggressive, militant, totalitarian political religion pushing in behind them.

First of all, I am a muslim, and I must comment on some misconceptions you seem to have. While in theory Islam is universalistic and race-blind, in practice it is not. Most muslim groups are “racist” in that they prefer their own race over other muslims, and would not give their daughters away to a foreign man, religious or not. And Islam is not a united monolithic force, it’s separate groups have fought each other many times before. But otherwise muslims do support other muslim groups, e.g. Palestine and Somali. As for White Muslim traditionalist, very very few of them exist, most muslim-born muslims are not traditionalist enough for me anyway. I do not interact with many converts, but the few times that I have (mainly on the internet), they carry too much of a liberal slant to their thoughts and ideas. Thus I do not really like them, they seem to carry too much of their white-guilt ridden past, and if I may theorize, I suspect a large influence on their conversion was because of the moral lackings of white Christian culture.

I do admire those qualities in Muslims as well (although also find them somewhat fearful, when they’re directed at me), but I don’t see it as being something specific to their religion. It’s just that their traditions are in a healthier condition than ours. Certainly, in Medieval times, Christian warriors were just as willing to die for Jesus as Muslims are today, and of course birth rate was not a problem. For that matter, Whites and Jews are the only races which struggle with the birth rate problem – the two most secularized peoples. I think that speaks volumes about the destructive effect that secularism has on any civilization or race.

“It springs from the vitality of the races who consider themselves Muslims, not from the religion itself.”

Bingo!! Biology is everything. And I would suggest that in a couple of generations these races will become as degenerate as us.

Anyhow, Gregory, that is one hell of an article. One thing, though. We have to settle on a definition of liberalism. You said, “. But in our present circumstances, we need to cling to every vestige of liberalism possible: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., lest whites lose all chance of freeing ourselves.”

I am pretty sure that liberalism refers to the rejection of traditional identities and inherited values. So, freedom of speech in White societies is not liberal, it’s traditional.

If so, we are opening up a gigantic can o’ worms between Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Heathens. Most Whites, of course, are secular – and I would argue that being a traditionalist Muslim is better than having no religion.

To refuse to open that can is to implicitly embrace a secular regime founded on secular Enlightenment ideals, is it not? When judging an individual, you claim that a man with any religion is better than one with no religion, no? Is that not the case with a state?

It seems necessary to open the can, pluck the best possible worm, and swallow it.

Speaking of Muslims, one idea I would like to borrow from them is dhimmi, wherein Muslim, Amish, and other non-conforming Whites in the future order enjoy protection and legal parity yet are excused and excluded from certain roles, functions, and duties. Kinfolk who do not share the state’s official confession are not persecuted but are not given a blank check to subvert and pervert the state. Whites who convert to Islam wouldn’t be deported or persecuted, but a consequence of converting to Islam would be exclusion from public office and military service.

Perhaps a realistic way to deal with it would be to allow and support relatively autonomous ethnarchs with parallel shadow governments under the aegis of the regime?

“To refuse to open that can is to implicitly embrace a secular regime founded on secular Enlightenment ideals, is it not? When judging an individual, you claim that a man with any religion is better than one with no religion, no? Is that not the case with a state?”

I suppose so. But we must also acknowledge social realities, and not just pick the one we like the most. It’s a bit of quandary in the U.S. today, however, since even saying “Christianity” is the answer is problematic. WHICH Christianity? Everyone will have their own ideas about it.

“Speaking of Muslims, one idea I would like to borrow from them is dhimmi, wherein Muslim, Amish, and other non-conforming Whites in the future order enjoy protection and legal parity yet are excused and excluded from certain roles, functions, and duties. Kinfolk who do not share the state’s official confession are not persecuted but are not given a blank check to subvert and pervert the state. Whites who convert to Islam wouldn’t be deported or persecuted, but a consequence of converting to Islam would be exclusion from public office and military service.”

Haha, interesting that Muslims and Amish were the two groups that came to your mind first. It’s a possible solution, but as Greg said, there are certainly far more pressing matters to worry about than what the proper attitude toward the few White Muslim converts in the West after the “victory” (in whatever form that takes) will be, at this point.

“Perhaps a realistic way to deal with it would be to allow and support relatively autonomous ethnarchs with parallel shadow governments under the aegis of the regime?”

India today remains about 70% Hindu, with the rest being 20% Muslim, 5% Christian, and the remaining 5% consisting of Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and others. The majority of legal matters are dealt with under federal law. Family law, however, is proscribed for each religious community, and therefore has its own code and courts for those matters specific for Christians, Muslims, etc. I could see something like that emerging. But again, it seems a bit pointless to dream about such things when we have no authority over even a single square foot of territory anywhere.

To refuse to open that can is to implicitly embrace a secular regime founded on secular Enlightenment ideals, is it not?

I would argue other options exist in the universe of theoretical possibilities if secularism were to prevail by default. To invent a clumsy coinage, one such option might be called “secular particularism” — a worldview for a secular regime that is secular but disconnected from universalist principles. A secular regime that serves the particular needs of White folks and only White folks could work.

Although secular and universal go hand-in-hand in the current historical context, there is no necessary reason I can think of that they have to. They don’t have to any more than any non-secular regime must be Christian or Muslim or Hindu, etc.

If you look at elite Jewry, it appears that most of the powerful Jews are secular. Having an atheist, agnostic or only nominally religious outlook generally doesn’t stop these secular Jews from working for the best interests of all Jews, including the religious ones. It shows that in principle secular leaders are capable of serving the nation.

Every society is bound together with a highest value that functions as the holy and sacrosanct. It may be a religious revelation or a set of non-mystical values. But in either case, it functions as the highest value to which all others are subordinated. Muslim societies make Islam this highest value. Western liberal societies make tolerance the highest value, their de facto religion.

Matt Parrott made an excellent point a while back on another thread. Every American town may have had many churches, but there was only one Masonic lodge. The true civil religion of a society is always one. Tolerance, therefore, makes all tolerated religions subordinate to a higher value, namely tolerance.

After a while, the Enlightenment religion of America was transformed into our new civil religion, which is basically worship of Jews either outright or through their symbolic avatars and political proxies (diversity, non-whites, etc.).

The NANR seeks to replace the present Jewish hegemony with a white hegemony, and that means replacing the de facto civil religion with a new civil religion in which white identity, white survival, and white flourishing are the holy and sacrosanct, and all other religions must be subordinated to that.

If people need to visit the various cults for their spiritual succor, nothing will stand in their way. Some, however, will find the civil religion sufficient.

For Christianity, making peace with such a non-theistic civil religion is not so hard, because their kingdom is not of this world, so Christians are capable of making peace with many different terrestrial regimes. Other religions will find their own ways of making peace. But inherently political religions like Islam cannot.

2. I’m an anti-modernist, anti-liberal and I have no respect for Islam. It doesn’t matter how religious or spiritual Muslims are, the religion produces fanatics and backwards societies. And a lower birth rate that produces quality children is preferrable to a high birth rate that produces millions of low-quality, low-IQ children who have no future and will not make a dent on history.

3. The best way to rally Whites is to deny Muslims and Jews their individual identities. Instead of Muslims and Jews, start considering them non-Whites or non-Europeans. Instead of asking if someone is Jewish or Arab, a WN should ask if they’re European or not.

I think it’s a mistake to assume that large families consist of low-IQ people. In modern society the main people who can afford more than five or so children are welfare mothers, but I had two grandparents from farm families of more than 10 children. In these large families the kids began to help out as soon as they were able, with the older girls assisting with cooking and younger babies and boys doing farm work. I suppose they got better mental stimulation than many upper middle class kids who are shipped off to day care at a young age and spend inordinate amounts of time in front of the TV. My Grandfather became a professor, and my Grandmother, who was a homemaker after her marriage, was an intelligent woman who read books and was involved in politics.

For modern examples, I think the Duggars go a bit far, but you can’t say they haven’t produced healthy, intelligent children. The same seems to be true of Amish and Mennonites, from what I have seen of them.

What a brilliant piece! The most comprehensive, in-depth, lucid and revealing article I have ever read on the topic of White-Jewish-Muslim relations and dynamics. Incredibly incisive, trenchant, and enlightening. This will be my bible on thinking and referencing about this vitally important yet highly intricate and entangling issue. Two thumbs up for Greg and his unparalleled insightfulness, penetration and clarity.

I’ve been concerned about philo-Islamism in the WNist movement for a while. The other (related) problem is excessive altruistic concern for non-Whites (Palestinians and Iranians) when we have our own life and death problems in front of us. I hope this essay convinces some of these people we can have two enemies at the same time (Jews *and* Muslims). The Islam lovers don’t seem to recognize this. Many appear to be under the influence of the Jews’ media narrative that falsely claims Islam is a religion of peace.

I don’t buy it. Never seen a WN who believes Islam to be a “religion of peace”. That’s false semantics anyway; it isn’t about war or peace— it is about poor, expanding populations being allowed to exploit another shrinking one, wholesale. These brown people could literally believe Krampus is their god and the effect would be exactly the same: it stems not from religious dispensation but from r-selection and cheap food.

Maybe not. But, judging from the comment chatter on across out various sites, there are definitely WNists who support aligning with Islam. Implicit in such proposals is the idea that working with Islam would be beneficial for Whites and that there is a possibility that Muslims would be open to such an alliance. In other words, these folks don’t see Islam for what it is, an implacable enemy, even if they don’t necessarily say they agree with the Islam is a religion of peace line.

I have often fantasized about growing my beard and converting, perhaps moving to Pakistan: if for nothing else than the chance to be devout without being Christian, and to wear loose white garments.

Probably Guenon had more learned reasons, but perhaps his motivation was no more than this desire to turn away from the secular, rationalistic, all-too-clever attitude of the average Westerner in exchange for Islamic gravitas. Or maybe he wasn’t all that serious and merely liked flirting heavily with the exotic.

1. To know enough about the situation to be able to argue against US involvement

2. To learn how the Jews especially in the Palestinian situation use their legal, military and financial powers to squeeze the Palestinians out of their land. Its shows how the Jews rule when they have undisputed power over others and how they will rule over Whites when they get the same power over them.

You don’t need to study the Palestinian situation in order to know how Jews rule when they have undisputed power over others. Look at the Soviet Union, a Jewish creation that cost 66 million people their lifes.

So much truth in this article. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen the views I hold on this subject expressed so well.

We need to be using our wonderful moral universalism and altruism to promote our truth. For example:

1. If Tibetan’s/Israeli’s/Palestinian’s deserve a homeland!
2 Then German’s/Russian’s/Afrikaner’s deserve one as well
3. If you deny a people’s right to exist, you are a horrible and uniquely evil person, who should
be socially shunned.

The only problem is that this is based on ethnicity. The Anglo diaspora will have a tough time using it. However, I truly feel that if White Americans want to survive, we need an ethnogenesis! “White” is simply not good enough.

And since it is our own cause, shouldn’t whites give it priority over the Palestinian cause?

That comment reminds me of the ubiquitous photos of the one smiling blonde White girl stuck in the middle of a gang of grinning Africans when she went there on a “mission outreach trip” to make her White teachers and pastor happy.

Shouldn’t she have given miserable poor Whites a priority over poor blacks who are happy even when poor?

Of course that should be our priority. I don’t think anyone here believes otherwise. But our struggle has many facets and battlefields. Our primary enemies are our own government and the Zionists. Supporting the Palestinians weakens both, and has been a major wrench in the works of their global designs for decades. I’m not saying that we should start holding rallies in support of Hamas or sending money to Hezbollah instead of Counter-Currents. But I certainly defend the rights of Palestinians in my own small way, whenever I can, in writing and in speech. Similarly, as for your African example, mission outreach trips are obviously stupid, but I do support the struggle of African nations to resist the imperialism of the American-dominated globalization effort. Not because I feel an obligation to Africans, but because the success of anyone who resists the “New World Order” ultimately aids us in our own endeavors.

….does that mean that I would consider alliances with Jews, as such European Nationalists as Nick Griffin, Guillaume Faye, Geert Wilders, and others have done? Absolutely not….

….Second, the Jews have attained hegemony over white societies by infiltrating, subverting, and transforming the whole political spectrum into defenders of Jewish interests. Thus, in terms of vital Jewish interests, it really does not matter which party attains power. It is sheer folly to think that Jews will not seek to do the same thing to all forms of European and White Nationalism. Since there is no sure way to tell a sincere Jewish sympathizer or ally from a mere agent of subversion, we simply must exclude all Jews and go it alone.

Very good. But you left out the most obvious example of Jewish subversion of White nationalism and of philosemitic nationalist leadership: American Renaissance and Jared Taylor.

Anyone truly serious about “excluding Jews” to avoid subversion needs to erect a strong cordon sanitaire around Amren and everyone associated with it.

I disagree. I know the people at Amren, and that is not what is going on. Amren is not Jewish led, nor will it ever be. The attempt to create a Jewish AmRen was Michael Hart’s Defending Western Civilization, or something to that effect, which popped up after Taylor rebuffed what was in effect a Jewish demand to dictate editorial policy spearheaded by Lawrence Auster.

Taylor chooses to focus on race, not Jews, which is a legitimate option. The idea is to focus on one heresy at a time. His decision to have Jewish speakers, however, puts him in the grotesque position of giving Jews a platform to criticize White Nationalism while not allowing WNs to criticize Jews.

I do, however, think that this policy has also outlived its usefulness. At the beginning, playing patty-cake with marginal Jews helped AmRen get its conferences on CSPAN and NPR. Now they can’t even hold conferences at private hotels.

Personally, I think that WNs need to exclude Jews altogether. I consider it a blot on my record that as Editor of TOQ my first issue had an article by John Glad, whom I did not know to be a Jew at the time, and a translation by Glad of a poem by Osip Mandelstam, whom I did know to be a Jew. In the case of the poem, I justified it as a historical document. I think that Glad does excellent work, and I am glad to read it and review it and recommend it. But I think that in the end, we have to do this “ourselves alone.” Thus I do not agree with AmRen publishing Jewish authors or giving platforms to Jewish speakers, or NPI/Washington Summit sponsoring Jewish speakers or publishing Jewish authors. All of our efforts need to go toward cultivating and publishing our own talent, not giving platforms to the most over-published and publicized people in history, regardless of what useful things they might have to say.

Bravo on the refusal to compromise. As you say, sincere Jews should be able to understand this. But how many are capable of a sincerity in which there is no benefit to them and expulsion at the end? You are going to be very unpopular with the Tribe. They just don’t have that kind of disinterested morality. We are the Chosen if that is the criterion.

I post on Amren and they seem to have eased up a little on the censorship of all Jewish criticism. The current editor is very touch about the honor of women – and is thus resisting the natural alliance between White Nationalism and Men’s Rights.

No, sorry. Amren is hysterically reticent – emphasis on “hysterical” – to publish anything that will make Jews look bad, even to the extent of ignoring material published in Jewish journals! Other groups are fair game for close criticism, but not Jews, never Jews. You say you know the people at Amren, so does friendship trump principle? Amren has already been subverted, the hardcopy journal is gone, the website is a joke (Sailer is more of a hardcore racialist), and the commentators there sing the praises of Jews and Asians. And Hart wrote an essay for Amren shortly before the hardcopy went out of business, so is that “schism” still in effect? I’d expect Hart to show up at future Amren “meetings” a lot sooner than Duke.

Jared Taylor is a sincere White Nationalist who is well aware of the Jewish question but has chosen to run with an “angle” of focusing on race, not the Jewish question. That angle, in my opinion, has outlived whatever usefulness it had and entails never being able to please either Jewish or anti-Jewish monomaniacs.

Its not my approach. Its not an approach I would recommend. It forces me to recommend AmRen only with reservations. But Taylor and AmRen are simply not what you (or Alex Linder, whose dishonest talking points you are repeating) say they are.

Taking Taylor out of it since you know him personally, how does one tell the difference between 1) a person remaining silent on an issue(s) as a tactical decision to focus on one area or achieve some goal as a trade-off (perhaps a mainstream platform with a big audience) and 2) a person remaining silent because he is lying by omission or self-censoring, and 3) a person remaining silent because he agrees with us on some things but not others but who is still acting in good faith?

I don’t see where it’s all that easy to tell, again, taking Taylor out of it since you know him personally.

There’s a blogger I have a little feud with who posts at Heartiste, “whorefinder”. I won’t link to his blog, but he lives in NYC, frequents prostitutes, and absolutely loathes blacks — blames them and “leftists” for everything.

And so when reading his material and comments, wherever “Jew” would be more apposite, you see “leftist”, “leftism”, etc.

He’s friends with another ex-Heartiste commenter, Firepower, who now blogs at Eradica with Ryu, who’s friends with Mindweapons/Kievsky. What’s odd is that Firepower seems to have gone soft on the JQ while Ryu spends part of his time hounding other WNs for just that.

So I don’t know what’s going on there, but one thing I have noticed: 2’s are always highly defensive about it when challenged. Think of Fjordman (Tanstaafl recently drew him out again on this) or Unamused before he slithered out of the woodwork.

Which fits the profile of someone in pathological denial. When you encounter that: walk away. They cannot be helped. Unfortunately this is an enormous stumbling block to white nationalism.

Taylor chooses to focus on race, not Jews, which is a legitimate option. The idea is to focus on one heresy at a time. His decision to have Jewish speakers, however, puts him in the grotesque position of giving Jews a platform to criticize White Nationalism while not allowing WNs to criticize Jews.

I suspect it is also true that Taylor saw the “focus” on the JQ as being essentially counterproductive. At the time AmRen was finding its footing, most commentary on the JQ consisted of ranting and raving, which placed us in the position of helpless victims, or critique without offering a creative alternative.

My criticism of major WN “Leaders” is a matter of record, and seems essentially irrefutable. They bought into the nihilism that supports defeatism, and the premature impotence of cynicism. If Taylor recognized the correct solution, for now, was to focus on identifying metaissues, and then, on what we can do for us, for a change, so much the better.

What I find so disconcerting is that we have provided more than our share of Tonight’s Entertainment, while staying home, all alone in the night, hoping the Shadows didn’t go any closer to us.

Taylor fights the good fight in laying the foundation for allowing our people to accept the fact that they are, well, OUR People. That’s more than most do, and he does that rather well.

In short, Taylor is working on the ground game, and counter-currents is working on the air game. The best temporal outcome is Harold Covington’s model for the Northwest Republic. Indeed, I’ve discovered if you mention the framework of the Republic in casual discussions with people who complain about the status quo, my GOD, they would move there tomorrow.

Taylor is laying the groundwork. That’s more than most can say.

And, for the rest of us, contributing financially to counter-currents is an excellent way to support excellence.

Historically, many Sufis have been Jihadists. They’re not automatically the Good Islam that everyone is looking for so desperately. They follow Mohammad who said Islam must grow and never stop growing. Mr Morgan seems to be forgetting this primal injunction. Christ said to teach all men – but nothing about conquering nations. Thus Christianity can change and did.

The Islamic protocol was to write a letter to the King asking him to embrace Islam. If not accepted, invade and conquer. And then each person is free to decide Islam, dhimmitude, or death. Islam cannot change without ceasing to be Islam as defined by the Koran and Hadith. It’s a pity that the scholars who think that Sufism predated Islam are incorrect. Sufism sans Islam could be a beautiful thing. Certainly, whether Jidhadist or not, they are superior to Wahabism. But it’s easy to be better than that hellist interpretation of Islam. At their best, Sufism is indeed much better.

In summary, Cultural imperialism in the name of Christ was a misinterpretation of Him. But cultural imperialism and jihad are a true interpretation of Mohammad and the Koran.

Jaego, I’m not certain if you’re saying that Christian imperialism was a good or a bad thing, but I think one can make out of Christianity pretty much whatever one wants. After all, Christ said both to turn the other cheek, and that he brought not peace but a sword. Of course, if you are a believing Christian, you should follow the interpretations given by the authorities in your tradition. But Christian theology has always had to twist itself into strange positions to explain its political doctrines, since there isn’t much that is directly and unambiguously about politics in the New Testament. What would a “Christian state” actually look like, for instance? It’s unclear, at least from the texts. Islam has never had this problem, since, as you point out, politics and war are explicit parts of Qur’anic doctrine. To my mind, that is one of its strengths, as Evola believed as well. The only problem is for those of us who do not want to live in Dar al-Islam. But then, it forces us to be on our guard – as Europe was, at one time, and needs to become again.

I am not forgetting anything. I am well aware of the history of Islam, and the fact that many Sufis also fought wars – again, a strength in my view. I was not attempting to make a simplistic “Sufism=good, Islam=bad” distinction. But if we look at the reality of Sufism today, especially as espoused by traditionalists, I don’t see anything problematic. Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schuon, Titus Burckhardt, William Chittick, and Seyyed Hossein Nasr have never called for the Islamicization of the West. Indeed, such an idea goes against the very doctrine of traditionalism, which posits the transcendental unity, and validity, of the religious traditions, which includes their racial and cultural manifestations. Most traditionalists and Sufis interpret the injunction to jihad – there are seven types of jihad, by the way, war being just one, and the least important one – as the idea of war against one’s own lower instincts. Physical war against another is only to be used for defensive purposes. And as I said in an earlier comment, some Muslim traditionalists have actually rejected immigration and Islamicization. To my mind, to see all Muslims, Sufi or not, as a monolithic bloc threatening the survival of the West is as silly as seeing all Catholics as child molesters.

I repeat: the danger posed by Islam comes solely from immigration, which is being facilitated by our own governments, corporations, universities and special interest groups. There is no threat of the conquest of the West through jihad, by Sufis, traditionalists, Wahhabis or anyone else. Stop immigration, and the Islamic threat ends. To stop immigration, you have to first stop the people who are controlling and encouraging it – and that is not the Muslims themselves.

I will write about all of this in more detail in an essay on traditionalism that I am working on for Counter-Currents.

I don’t believe in forced conversion – that part of Christianity is a perversion of Christ’s Teaching and it has been the prevalent model in one form or another.

Read “Milestones” by Sayyid Qutub. He argues well that if Jihad was just for Defence that makes the Companions of the Left and the Right into monsters and greedy swine for the incredible amount of suffering they brought upon other Civilizations. But it is not so – Jihad was first and foremost for the conversion of the infidels. And Jihad came to mean physical war fairly early on. And – Mohammad himself lead a raid into the outskirts of Byzantium. He himself commenced it.

I once asked a young Muslim prosletyzer about why the Muslims conquered so much. He became nervous and blurted out “it was just something they wanted to do”. I could tell he didn’t believe that since it would just mean that they were spiritualy bankrupt. But in his preaching efforts he had been coached to mock the idea of Jihad as a Religious Duty. These efforts have worked and Westerners are thoroughly confused and end up defending Islam and condemning the Crusaders who fought them. We were on the Defensive, not them. And in War, attack is always on the table.

Of course these other meanings are there: inner, defence, monetary etc. But offensive war is the first and foremost. Islam has to expand or degenerate, much like modern Capitalism. Clearly these are people who need an enemy. And as the Report from Iron Mountain said, War is a the method par excellance for social controll. Indeed we may be using it in this conflict. That doesn’t mean there is no jihad btw.

We did it too: nothing could justify what we did to the Third World except telling ourselves we did it to give them Christ. But the real missionaries went in irrespective of conquests. Converting free peoples is one thing – kicking slaves quite another.

Thanks for clarifying your views, Jaego. I actually have read Sayyid Qutb’s “Milestones.” I consider Qutb to be one of the great critics of modernity in the 20th century, even if I don’t agree with him that Islam is the solution to humanity’s ills. However, “Milestones” is not a Sufi or traditionalist work. The problem is trying to treat “Islam” as a singular phenomenon when, as with any religion, there are many sub-sects (Sunni and Shi’a, to name just two) and schools of thought, so any statement about “Islam is like such-and-such” has to be qualified.

I would not deny that Islam, as a whole, is an expansionist religion, just as Christianity is. However, I see that Christianity has created many great things, as well as done great evil. The same is true of Islam – for centuries the Muslims tried to conquer Europe, but they also built the Taj Mahal and produced the poetry of Rumi and the philosophy of Averroes. Therefore, I cannot say that either Christianity or Islam is completely good or completely bad, even though I myself do not adhere to either.

Those who try to prove that Islam, as a religion, is a threat to the West always talk about jihad, jihad, jihad. But apart from the exaggerated rhetoric spewed by some – not all – radical Islamists, I see very little evidence for a jihadist threat to the West. During Medieval times, when they had relative parity with Europe, they were unable to conquer us in spite of centuries of effort. As for today – sure, they occasionally pull off a spectacular terrorist attack, but that in itself doesn’t qualify jihad as an existential threat to the West. Let’s take a look at the reality: the Muslim world has had no unified rule since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire nearly a century ago. The only thing they hate more than Israel and the U.S. is each other. The Muslim nations are so ill-equipped and prepared for war that they cannot even defend their own lands from attack by Israel or the United States, so it’s difficult to see how they could mount a successful invasion. Iraq, which is one of the great powers of the Arab world, crumbled before American might in three weeks. Sure, they mounted a guerrilla campaign afterwards – a campaign which, while bloody, failed in all its goals and only claimed the lives of a few thousand enemy soldiers – fewer than the number who commonly died in an average battle in one of the world wars. As statistics show, an American has a greater chance of dying by falling in the shower than of being killed in a terrorist attack. So I don’t see how jihad poses any real threat to us. On the other hand, there are Jews, Christians and secular Whites among our own people who perpetrate genocidal actions against us every day, and yet are hailed as being among the great men of our time. So which is the greater threat?

Why my sincere and heartfelt comment in praise of this great article was not allowed to be posted here? Why? What a mind-boggling, saddening and disappointing result! Could Greg or anyone there kindly tell me the reason?

True Christian expansion would be one individual at at time – and not whole Nations converted by force or economic pressure. In the begining, it was done the right way. Muslim expansion was supposed to be by the sword. That’s the difference.

A very fine, top-of-the-line article. There are so many excellently articulated points that I can’t really point them all out, but I do especially like the assertion that, “It is their country now, and we need to divest ourselves of it emotionally and in every other way.” And, “whites are more likely to gain control over our destiny…if America’s present rulers run it into the ground.” This just hits the nail right on the head.

The Muslims are criticized for their fanaticism and intolerance, but I would argue that those are their strongest qualities. The Muslims do not put up with trashing their religion and culture. They fight, and they are feared, and they are respected. Muslims’ willingness to defend their ideals unapologetically with violence is a tremendous strength, to be greatly admired (though their swarthy kind and their alien religion naturally belong outside the West). Their religion and patriarchal society ensures that they will survive far into the future, long after the weak, decadent, atheistic, infertile liberals of the West have limped off into the ignominy of biological extinction. The ideal Nationalist party would be similarly full of committed, hard-core, intolerant fanatics, ready to march in the streets and riot when appropriate.

I might just quibble with one thing, regarding the jailing of the makers of the anti-Islamic film. In a White Nationalist nation, I think freedom of speech should have a wide latitude. Citizens should be free to criticize Islam all they like, regardless of consequences (within reason). However, I am going to assume that Mr. Johnson was referring to creating this particular film as part of a conspiracy to bring the nation into conflict with Islam, rather than as a speech issue. Therefore, you may disregard my quibble. Carry on.

Considering the depth of white thinkers and mystics, from Herakleitos to Heidegger, I find it inconceivable that a white man should follow the ramblings of this Mohammed creature instead.

If a white man joins Islam, and especially Sufism, because it continues some traditional, pre-Islamic traditions, why not study these elements without the Islamic trappings?

I think that here we see some limits of Traditionalist thought. Tradition always seems in danger of becoming an abstract and universalist idea. But what is Tradition without our actual ancestors?

Our actual ancestors have fought the invasions of the Islamic peoples tooth and nail. Islam was the motor behind the aggression. And now we, their descendants, should join this religion? This seems especially offensive as its adherents form the majority of the immigration hordes that threaten the existence of the white peoples in Europe.

Therefore I consider conversion to Islam, just like conversion to Judaism, as treason. High treason.

The reasons why many – by no means all, however – traditionalists (not all of whom are White, by the way) have become Muslims is complex. It seems to me because Guenon, who founded the school of thought, became a Muslim himself, but as Greg said, that may very well be only because he ended up in Egypt. Unfortunately, many traditionalists since then have assumed that Islam has a privileged status. There are other arguments as well – for example, that since most traditionalists no longer regard present-day Catholicism as a successful vehicle for Tradition, Islam was the next-closest thing and not as alien as some other traditions, still being part of the Abrahamic triad.

The confusion a lot of people have about traditionalism is that they assume it is a political doctrine, mainly because of Evola (who wasn’t part of the main current of traditionalist thought). It is not. It is pure metaphysics. One can have specific political views and still be a traditionalist, but it is not necessary. Therefore there is no particular reason why a traditionalist should only follow the traditions of his ancestors. If one thinks it is important to follow the traditions of one’s ancestors (for us, Christianity), then one can certainly still be a traditionalist, but there’s nothing inherent in it that says one has to do that. I would imagine many of those traditionalists who did become Muslims would argue that they only did so because spirituality in the West has decayed so much. You can say this is universalist, but it only is insofar as philosophy is universalist.

Also, there is no such thing as Sufism without Islam. The exoteric and the esoteric go together.

If you consider conversion to Islam or Judaism as treason, that’s OK, but then what is NOT treason? Being a Catholic? Being some sort of Christian? Are White Buddhists and Hindus traitors?

There is a convincing case to be made that Sufism is merely pagan neoplatonism accommodated to Islamic totalitarianism. Since we do not suffer from Islamic totalitarianism in the West (yet), why not just drop the exoteric trappings and focus on the neoplatonic core? Furthermore, if this thesis is true, then so much for the claim that ancient pagan Traditions are dead.

The best textual basis for this thesis about Sufism is Ibn Tufayl’s Hayy Ibn Yaqzan:

That may be an interesting undertaking, Greg, but it wouldn’t be traditionalism. If you follow Guenon or Schuon, you have to take the exoteric and the esoteric as a single whole. Idries Shah, a prominent New-Ager, tried to develop a form of Sufism that was non-Islamic, but the result was pretty silly.

Also, if one wants to study or practice Neoplatonism, it’s not necessary to go to Sufism. There is a group called Aurea Vidya based out of Italy which has combined Neoplatonism with the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism (which is a far better fit than Islam) that is quite interesting, and there, one doesn’t need to deal with Islam at all.

To understand treason, you must understand the group that claims the loyalty of the treacherous individual.

The group concept that I endorse may seem alien or evil to Americans, especially for protestants. It conflicts with their conscious ideology, even though they live it to a very limited extend.

I see the white race essentially as a very extended clan. The clan combines effortlessly race as a genetic reality with race as a social construct. It incorporates history and locality. Enmities and loyalties are inherited from generation to generation. It commands fierce loyalty and confers a deep sense of belonging. The clan is the essential remedy against rootlessness. Our main roots extend into the clan, the blood, not into the soil. This is reflected in the saying: “My race is my nation”.

Feudal society was an association of clans in an extending and hierarchical structure culminating in the Empire. Patriarchy and a correct hierarchial structure can only be guaranteed by a clan.

The clan can even incorporate the idea of the spiritual race, as it stands for and induces virtues to be pursued from generation to generation.

All these elements give the clan a transcendent quality. It is not for nothing that Norse mythology appears like ancient family or clan history set in the sky. My race ( my clan ) is my religion. The collective consciousness is my shepherd.

In the history of a clan, new elements may appear and be incorporated into the clan. Individual members may influence the clan’s view of reality. They may have found valuable views in the religion of another clan, for example the clan of the Shakyas.

However, history is real. Your existence here and now is an inheritance of your ancestors ideas and efforts. It will not do to simply adopt the tradition of another clan that has made continuous war upon your ancestors. Loyalty is commanded. Above all, the existence of the clan must be safeguarded under all circumstances.

Islam is a universalist ideology, which means it is anti-clannish. Furthermore, it has inspired fierce enmity towards our clan, both towards our ancestors and ourselves. This hardly recommends it to be incorporated into the clan.

Proper spirituality and proper hierarchy are in the west indeed sorely missing. However, patriarchy and a correct hierarchical structure can only be guaranteed by the clan. The remedy is therefore to strengthen clan structure, for example through metapolitics. To leave the clan is disloyalty, to join another clan that is a historical enemy is treason.

The white clan has incorporated two important movements: Christianity and paganism. Metapolitics should sift through their elements to see which are able to strengthen the clan. In my opinion, Christianity has to go, to a large extend. A universalist religion is inimical to clan consciousness, and love for one’s enemy hampers the defense of the realm. Catholicism is more congenial towards the clan than protestantism. I would say that only a very clannish and pagan Christian movement might be acceptable, like the German Christians.

Metaphysics nor philosophy can be a-political because as humans we are not capable of transcending space and time, though we might catch glimpses of eternity. Any philosophy is firmly rooted in the soil the thinker stands upon. The main soil however, is not the earth, but the clan.

I am so sorry. I was remiss and didn’t find it which I supposed was in the beginning part of the comment section in the first place as I noticed myself being perhaps the first one to write in a comment on this article at the time. Now I found my previous comment amid many longer and more knowledgeable and informing ones, and it actually took me a little time to locate mine as there are indeed so many comments.

Again, my genuine and ardent congratulations and heartfelt thanks to Greg for having written such an incredibly and inestimably instructive and demystifying article. It is a priceless gem and a piece of great intellectual weapon with which we must arm ourselves in observing and discerning such a complex and perplexing question. I myself will never look at it in the same light again as I did in the past.

Hope everybody here help spread this illuminating message to those we would like to inform and persuade as much and as actively as we could so that the White in general will be better off in a long run and hopefully reverse our current grievous and dangerous disadvantage with our conscious and concerted effort under the invaluable and indispensable guidance encapsulated in great intellectual and ideological fruits such as this very article.

. . . and here they demand the “right of return” to Spain, a right they interestingly do not grant to the “600,000 Arabs” (by Zionist admission) of Palestine in accordance with the “universal rights of humanity” they promulgate for the “United Nations”. Things are always different when they apply to you and not somebody else.

Is War to be accepted as Just so casually – especially now with weapons of mass destruction? Ask the Hindus how they feel about Jihad and the utter ruin it caused India. And ask them if they think it’s over. Ask the people of Europe. Go to Occidental Observer and read the current article about the ruthless persecution of the German people in Muslim areas.

Islam means submission and that’s not the same as Peace. Christianity is far more the Religion of Peace – too much so now for its own good.

The greatest scholars of Sufism deny absolutely that Sufism is or can be separated from Islam. Too bad since it is very profound and beautiful. I don’t know how Guenon, Schuon, Lings and Co can bridge the gap. Lings lived to see the London bombing I believe.

I recall reading an orthodox christian priest decrying religious conversions. He said that if a religion is in your ancestry for a long time, you inherit that, too, whether you like it or not.

Think about it. How can you be raised in a household practicing, or at least emotionally attached to, a certain set of values (if not behaviours), and then all of a sudden claim you are now something 180 degrees different? If you don’t like the teachings of Christianity you can still acknowledge that your people have been in it for 1000 years instead of walking around in a scarf, praying 5 times a day facing east and magically identifying with a strange, foreign people. This is cultish behaviour, like attending a few Moonie meetings and deciding you are now a Moonie. There is a reason there’s something called cultural Christianity. Lots of people describe themselves as “non practicing Christians”. As a matter of fact, you can continue to do and think what you want and still call yourself Christian. Nobody out there gives a sh*t that Christianity has jewish origins, you don’t have to impress the 99% of the population who don’t care about you anyway.

I didn’t know Guenon had “converted” but you can’t truly convert in any meaningful sense. Inside you are still what you were born into. Christianity, no matter which sect, isn’t some little accidental side trip our ancestors took and then quickly got back on their correct path (whatever that was). It made us, right or wrong.

I think it might be possible – some people never feel comfortable in the religion they were born into. But to turn hatefuly against it is another thing all together.

That being said, I think there is alot in what you said – certainly for the majority. I got a big kick out of the late Orianna Fallaci who called herself a Christian Atheist. She was outraged at the Muslims camping out and even urinating in the Cathedral where she had been baptized.

Stronza, our culture hasn’t been Christian for a long time. The culture that we have now is liberal modernity, which is opposed to everything that our civilization used to stand for. It has become so inculcated into our cultural mindset that most people aren’t even aware of it. Some of them even believe that they are still actually Christians, when in fact it is just feel-good pop culture liberal rhetoric mixed with a pinch of Zionism. Therefore, I would say that anything that a person does to free himself from the liberal mindset, whether it’s becoming a TRUE Christian, a Muslim, a Heathen, a Buddhist, a radical anarchist, a nationalist, or whatever, can only be beneficial. The other stuff about saving our race and our culture only comes after one understands that modernity has to be rejected. But to say that rejecting Christianity in favor of another religion, when 99% of our people have already rejected any sort of higher values, is somehow a betrayal of our civilization is ludicrous. Our civilization, as it exists at present, is a gargantuan betrayal of everything that once constituted “the West.”

No way, babe. Religion ain’t in yer genes, no matter how many centuries yer ancestors were in thrall to it.

And isn’t that just another disproof of all religion — only neocortex-deep.

Open your mind here, though. Islamic prayer can be seen as meditation. I used to do it, reciting the full Shi’ite shahada. Of course I stopped because I don’t need to be even more alienated from my time, place, and people, but it was relaxing. I looked at a ton of pornography back then, and I found that the several prayers throughout the day made me loath to sully the process by indulging that habit, and it was actually this that broke it.

Has a wonderful focusing effect. As Nietzsche said of Buddhism, it is a hygienic faith, or can be if followed truly. But, I’m a skinhead, and — ich auf der falschen Seite war.

Reciting the Shi-ite shahada is relaxing and focusing, is it. So’s secular TM (transcendental meditation) where all you recite is a meaningless phrase 20 min. 2X/day. It’s not loaded with Arab values, culture, ideals, etc. and you did good to quit.

Re Buddhism and its hygienic quality if followed “truly”. Might that be the far eastern folk Buddhism or the westernized version for liberals? I read 2 articles on this that sure opened my eyes:

“Folk Buddhism” believes in supernatural powers and influences. It has an entire theory of angelic and demonic beings that is remarkably similar to the medieval Christian one. It believes praying to long-dead saints can lead to their beneficent intercession. It includes elaborate rituals of veneration and prayer. Etc.”

“Reciting the Shi-ite shahada is relaxing and focusing, is it. So’s secular TM (transcendental meditation) where all you recite is a meaningless phrase 20 min. 2X/day. It’s not loaded with Arab values, culture, ideals, etc. and you did good to quit.”

Well, the truth is, I like those values — yes, those arid anti-artistic, woman-oppressing, jihading values so feared by WNs! — and allowed myself to come under their spell for a time. I’m an atheist, so as far as I’m concerned, “laa ʾilaaha ʾilla laah” is a meaningless phrase.

“Might that be the far eastern folk Buddhism or the westernized version for liberals?”

Neither: I mean reading the Pali Canon, and endeavoring to live by the Buddha’s own ethics. But I’ll have a look at those links.

Yes, Guenon did convert to Islam, but as a traditionalist, that doesn’t mean he rejected other religions. From his biography one gets the impression that he only left Catholicism out of reluctance, because he thought it had become too modernized and liberalized to serve as a vehicle for Tradition any longer. That being said, he never condemned Christianity per se, nor did he ever encourage other Europeans to become Muslims, nor did he ever say that he thought Europe should be Islamicized (apart from a single private letter which was revealed to be a forgery). Of course, Guenon died before Muslim immigration was a serious factor in European life, so we can only speculate about what he might have thought about it.

“….Islam would be even more destructive of the integrity of our race than Christianity and liberalism.”

One of the two changes I’d make in this wonderful essay would be in the above.
Change “Christianity” to “Christian leaders.”
As Covington pointed out, it makes no sense to try to convert the silent majority of whites to white nationalism while attacking their religion.
The other would be in reference to separating ourselves from the Jews. If they are simply expelled from the U.S. at random they will only set up shop in some other unsuspecting and probably white country.
From there “Hollywood” were ever it would be re-located, would rail again fascist racist Amerika for the next 70 years.
I’d propose turning Southern California into a Jewish Socialist Soviet state. I do hope that living among themselves and with no fanatical enemies next door will gradually improve Jewish culture. In a social biology evolutionary sense it won’t work for Jewish inside traders when the unsuspecting stockholders are all fellow Jews.
Additionally before departing they should be put thorough a sort of de-Nazification process as we did in Germany after 1945.

1. Jews have Israel. No need to give them any more real estate, especially nice real estate, especially on this continent.

2. The problem with distinguishing between Christianity and Christian leaders is that the rot goes all the way back to the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Christian values are the problem. We need Christian leaders who will subordinate Christian values to racial values.

My intent is that all U.S. Jews and half Jews would be moved to the JSSR of Sou Cal.
Giving Jews real estate (10,000 sq miles of semi arid land) is just my way of following Don Corleone’s dictum. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
The intrinsic value of the real estate is probably not that much more than Manhattan, “Lonk” Island and Miami Beach combined.
Unless we are to try the fictional “Final Solution” of Hitler I maintain we need to do to something about Jewish cultural proclivities. We should do to the Jews what they tried to do to us. Social engineer the H E double L out of them.
As to Christian teaching off the top of my head I’m unaware of any scripture preaching racial suicide. The Old Testament is full of Jewish exclusivism.
“Love they neighbor” (spoken to Jews living among Jews) doesn’t necessarily mean pro-creating with someone in or from China.
And Paul’s exhortation to Jews and Greeks to not sit separately in church was aimed at people who weren’t all that genetically dissimilar.
I think you may be reacting to a Jewdized “Hollywood” version of Christianity.
As it says in Acts the apostles fled “For fear of the Jews.”

Oh and bye the bye, Southern California is skin cancer country for Europeans. My brother in law grew up there and now has it.
I belive it was Stodard who wrote that Europeans evolved in an area that was in the temperate zone and had a good amount of water. Southern California doesn’t fit that bill. Not such nice real estate maybe unless you are a Semite.
We should probably also let Florida and the Gulf Coast region become a North American Negro Republic.

Well, Christianity actually has a history of subordinating and accommodating itself to incompatible secular value systems because ultimately its kingdom is not of this world anyway. It is only when Christians insist on creating their ideal world in this realm that the destructiveness of their values becomes a pressing issue. So, unlike Islam, Christianity can be made consistent with a white racialist society.

Many, or most non-religious types don’t seem to “get” Christianity and its benefits, and I think you fall into this category. I would like to provide some thoughts that I hope you will consider, though some might be somewhat difficult for you to accept.

First, spirituality, universal through human societies, is not just a tradition, but a biological human need involving brain structure, akin to the need for love. Perhaps it is irrational, but that is the nature of man. You may have never had a spiritual experience, but those who have had will tell you that these are very powerful and very real for people.

Second, Christianity arose in a darwinian process of natural selection, and beat out hundreds of competitors to become dominant mainly because it meets human needs. This belief system is spiritually satisfying, and it is believable for its adherents. Conversely, neo-paganism and related belief systems are not. It is not reasonable to assume that they or other manufactured religions could replace Christianity.

Third, Christianity is not by its nature incompatible with Nationalism. All of the nations of the West were intensely Nationalistic and Christian for most of their existence. The Christian US society of the past implemented Jim Crow laws and anti-miscegenation laws, and maintained a Eurocentric, racialist culture for a long time. In fact, National Socialism did quite well for a time in Christian Germany, at a time when most of the population was fairly devout. The bible is full of doctrines and teachings, and there is much to select from that is extraordinarily Nationalistic (particularly the Old Testament).

Fourth, Christianity is overall a huge plus for a society, for the devout believers. It helps with ethics and morality, improves adherents’ mental health and coping abilities and helps with social cohesion. More importantly, the faithful are much more willing to make sacrifices, especially in conflicts. Most importantly, it adds strength to families. Christian families have more children and have stronger bonds than non-religious ones. The devout Christians doing far better than non-religious ones in combating the corrupt popular culture within the nation. Here in Utah, I am surrounded by big families with their blue-eyed children, who are growing up to be happy and well-adjusted adults, and their religion plays a central role in this.

For these reasons, I think that the disdain and ridicule toward Christianity seen on WN sites, as well as the promotion of paganism, are misguided and counterproductive. If WN is to become mainstream, it must be acceptable to the White Christian majority. The effort should be not to tear down or irradicate Christianity, but to re-introduce WN concepts back into it, to reform and restore it.

In 2003, in Iraq, the first amongst the civilians to pick up arms against the US invaders were Sufis. Sufis are HYPER Muslims, in that they are truly engaged in the spiritual understanding as LIFE itself rather than the crass formalities that one so often notes in the Muslim mainstream.

Muslims, when the Crusaders held Jerusalem, were forced to pay a tax to pray. It is also true that when the Crusaders took Jerusalem they slaughtered every single Muslim, man, woman, and child. When Salah al-Din retook Jerusalem he spared the lives of Christians. He was a man of honor and not without mercy.

I think the issue needs be understood as a biological issue, and not, necessarily, a theological one.

Truly there is a degree of disfavor, indeed hatred, for the religion of Islam posted by commenters on venues such as Stormfront and Free Republic and elsewhere on the Sean Hannity end of the political spectrum. It is much rarer on VNN for instance.

A White man should be free to practice his own path to the transcendent without interference by a government. If he harms not his neighbor why should he not be permitted to be a Muslim, for instance?

The White Muslim is not an issue for the goal of returning the West to its previous White condition. Surely there are a preponderance of typical white progressives who become Muslims but not all.

So when those who so wish to “COME AFTER” the White Muslims, who are National Socialists, will you send Drones? Will you bring “Death from Above”? Will you slaughter their wives and children as has happened to Muslims all over the world by US forces?

Because these are hard men who are devoted to their race and God, and they will not go easily, I do believe.

The idea of being free to practice one’s own path to the transcendent without interference by the state sounds nice, but of course some paths to the transcendent are not themselves politically neutral. They demand a certain kind of state, which is illiberal in itself. Islam will not play by liberal rules, and liberals who tolerate it are committing suicide. And I am not a liberal.

What to do with White Muslims? Don’t get melodramatic. We will offer them something better than they offer us (conversion, death, or dhimmitude), namely apostasy or exile.